Copyright Question

Doc Searls has a question about copyright. The Huffington Post says:

Unless expressly permitted, you may not copy, reproduce, distribute, publish, enter into a database, display, perform, modify, create derivative works, transmit, or in any way exploit any part of this Service, except as permitted under the last sentence of this Section 4(a) and except that you may make one print copy that is limited to occasional articles of personal interest only. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing (but subject to the last sentence of this Section 4(a)), you may not distribute any part of this Service over any network, including, without limitation, a local area network, nor sell or offer it for sale. In addition, these files may not be used to construct any kind of database. Just as THP from time to time excerpts materials from other sources in order to support the various commentaries and writings contained herein, we respect the right of others to make "fair use" of the materials contained on THP; accordingly, you may from time to time excerpt and use materials set forth on this site, provided, that you must give the original author credit and such use must be for a non-commercial purpose only and not, for example, for re-sale.

What does these terms mean for bloggers like me who run ads on their blog? Does that make us a "commercial blog"?

Doc notes: "A while back, Larry Lessig advised me (among other bloggers with public domain dedications on their blogs) to choose another license. I forget the exact reason, but it was roughly because the current copyright environment is insane."

This leaves me questioning the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommericial 2.0 license I use for this blog. If someone is making money by running a few Google Ads on their blog violating license?

If I found someone selling my music on CD or using my blog entries to publish a book, I would be more than a little upset. I doubt if this would ever happen, but that is the sort of protection the CC license offers.

The purpose of Creative Commons is to free ideas from the restrains of copyright law. I wonder now, if they went far enough, or if I chose the wrong license.